4.6 Article

Ciprofloxacin and probiotic Escherichia coli Nissle add-on treatment in active ulcerative colitis: A double-blind randomized placebo controlled clinical trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 8, 期 11, 页码 1498-1505

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.crohns.2014.06.001

关键词

Ulcerative colitis; Escherichia colt; E. coli Nissle; Ciprofloxacin

资金

  1. Danish Colitis Crohn's Associations Research Fund
  2. Danish Medical Associations Research Fund (Mimi and Victor Larsens Fond)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aim: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory bowel disease. The probiotic bacterium Escherichia coli Nissle 1917 (EcN) has been used to maintain and induce clinical remission in UC. Our aim was to test the effect of Ciprofloxacin and/or orally administered EcN as add-on to conventional therapies in patients with active UC. Patients and methods: Our single center double-blinded randomized placebo controlled study included patients with a Colitis Activity Index (CAI) score of at least 6. Patients were randomized to Ciprofloxacin or placebo for 1 week followed by EcN or placebo for 7 weeks. All 4 treatments were given as add-on treatments. Results: One hundred subjects with active UC were recruited. In the per-protocol analysis we, surprisingly, found that in the group receiving placebo/EcN fewer patients, 54%, reached remission compared to the group receiving placebo/placebo, 89%, p < 0.05. Among patients treated with Cipro/placebo and Cipro/EcN, 78% and 66% reached remission, respectively. Furthermore, the group receiving placebo/EcN had the largest number of withdrawals, 11 of 25 (44%), compared to 15 of 75 (20%) in any of the other groups, p <0.05. Indication of lack of mucosal healing was found in the group treated with placebo/Nissle, since only 4 (29%) of the 14 patients, who completed the study, reported no blood in stools at week 12 (p <0.02), compared to 63%, 67% and 65% in groups treated with Cipro/Nissle, Cipro/placebo and placebo/placebo, respectively.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据